It is unlikely that the designers of the early network that is now referred to as the “Internet” expected it to become as large as it has become. The fact that the global Internet Protocol (IP) address space for 32-bit addresses has been fully allocated is evidence of this. As the Internet grows, new problems will arise and some current problems are getting worse. For example, while network speeds and bandwidth are increases, so are causes of network latency.
The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has taken steps at various times in the past and are presently taking steps to address a number of problems resulting from the Internet's growth. Problems addressed by the IETF are described in a number of “Request for Comments” (RFC) documents published the IETF. Documents referenced herein include: “Request for Comments” (RFC) document RFC 791 edited by J. Postel, titled “Internet Protocol, DARPA Internet Protocol Specification”, published by the IETF in September, 1981;
“Request for Comments” (RFC) document RFC 201519 by V. Fuller, et al, titled “Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): An Address Assignment and Aggregation Strategy”, published by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), in June, 1999;
“Request for Comments” (RFC) document RFC 2410 by S. Deering, et al, titled “Internet Protocol, Version 206, (IPv6) Specification”, published by the IETF in December, 1998;
“Request for Comments” (RFC) document RFC 3513 by R. Hinden, et al, titled “Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Addressing Architecture”, published by the IETF in April, 2003; and
“Request for Comments” (RFC) document RFC 2374 by R. Hinden, et al, titled “Aggregatable Global Unicast Address Format”, published by the IETF in July, 1998.
The authors of RFC 201519 in dealing with a number of issues state that their proposal”.
RFC 791 states, “The internet protocol implements two basic functions: addressing and fragmentation”. RFC 791 goes on to state, “A distinction is made between names, addresses, and routes. A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how to get there. The internet protocol deals primarily with addresses. It is the task of higher level (i.e., host-to-host or application) protocols to make the mapping from names to addresses. The internet module maps internet addresses to local net addresses. It is the task of lower level (i.e., local net or gateways) procedures to make the mapping from local net addresses to routes”.
Further new protocols and platforms for building new protocols, such as OpenFlow of the Open Network Foundation (ONF), have been introduced, and will continue to be introduced. Such protocols and platforms are within the scope of the subject matter of the present disclosure. The OpenFlow protocol is specified in “OpenFlow Switch Specification”, by Pfaff, B, et al, and published by the ONF in Feb. 29, 2011.
In order to address a number of current and future problems facing the Internet, the subject matter described herein challenges the distinctions asserted in RFC 791 and establishes new relationships between and among names, addresses, and routes. The description herein further demonstrates that current internet addresses do not indicate where a node or network interface component (NIC) of a node is. They provide another global identifier space for identifying nodes and their network interfaces. This global identifier space to some extent is duplicative of the domain name space, which is also a global identifier space for identifying nodes and network interfaces. This duplication of roles is unnecessary as described below.
Accordingly, there exists a need for methods, systems, and computer program products for associating a name with a network path.